Luke 16:19

A certain rich man. [The Rich Man and Lazarus, Luke 16:19-31. On parables see pp. 203-207.] For what little is known concerning the circumstances under which this parable was spoken see on vs. 1, 14. The parable was evidently addressed to the Pharisees in particular (see chs. 15:2; 16:14), though the disciples (ch. 16:1), the “publicans and sinners” (ch. 15:1), and without doubt a large audience also (see on chs. 12:1; 14:25; 15:1), were present.

In this parable Jesus continues the lesson set forth in the parable of the Dishonest Steward (ch. 16:1-12), that the use made of the opportunities of the present life determines future destiny (see on vs. 1, 4, 9, 11, 12). That parable had been addressed particularly to the disciples (see on v. 1), but in v. 9 Jesus had turned from the disciples to the Pharisees present (see on v. 9). The Pharisees refused to accept Jesus’ teachings on stewardship and sneered at Him (see v. 14). Jesus then pointed out that they might be honored by men, but that God read their hearts like an open book (see on v. 15). They had had sufficient light; they had long enjoyed the instruction of “the law and the prophets,” and since the ministry of John the added light of the gospel had been theirs (see on v. 16). In vs. 17, 18 Jesus affirms that the principles set forth in “the law” are immutable — God has not changed — and gives an example of this sublime truth. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is then given to show that destiny is decided in this present life by the use made of its privileges and opportunities (see COL 260). In the first place, the “certain rich man” represents all men who make a wrong use of life’s opportunities, and, in a collective sense, it represents also the Jewish nation, which, like the rich man, was making a fatal mistake (see COL 267). The parable consists of two scenes, one representing this life (vs. 19-22), and another the next (vs. 23-31). The parable of the Dishonest Steward approached the problem from the positive point of view, that is, from the point of view of one who did make preparations for the future. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus approaches the same problem from the negative point of view, that is, from the point of view of one who failed to make such preparation. The rich man erred in thinking that salvation is based on Abrahamic descent rather than upon character (cf. Eze. 18).

Like all other parables, that of the Rich Man and Lazarus must be interpreted in harmony with its context and with the general tenor of Scripture. One of the most important principles of interpretation is that each parable was designed to teach one fundamental truth, and that the details of the parable need not necessarily have significance in themselves, except as “props” for the story. In other words, the details of a parable must not be pressed as having a literal meaning in terms of spiritual truth unless the context makes clear that such a meaning is intended. Out of this principle grows another — that it is not wise to use the details of a parable to teach doctrine. Only the fundamental teaching of a parable as clearly set forth in its context and confirmed by the general tenor of Scripture, together with details explained in the context itself, may legitimately be considered a basis for doctrine. See pp. 203, 204. The contention that Jesus intended this parable to teach that men, whether good or bad, receive their rewards at death violates both of these principles.

As clearly set forth in the context (see above), this parable was designed to teach that future destiny is determined by the use men make of the opportunities of this present life. Jesus was not discussing either the state of man in death or the time when rewards will be passed out; He was simply drawing a clear distinction between this life and the next and showing the relationship of each to the other. Furthermore, to interpret this parable as teaching that men receive their rewards immediately at death clearly contradicts Jesus’ own declaration that “the Son of man shall ... reward every man according to his works” when He “shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels” (see on Matt. 16:27; 25:31-41; cf. 1 Cor. 15:51-55; 1 Thess. 4:16, 17; Rev. 22:12; etc.). It is one of the most important rules of interpretation that figurative expressions and narratives are to be understood in terms of the literal statements of Scripture concerning the truths referred to. Even those who attempt to force this parable into a pattern of interpretation that teaches contrary to the immediate context and to the general tenor of Christ’s teachings concede that many of the details of the parable are figurative (see on vs. 22-26).

It may then properly be asked, “Why would Jesus introduce into a parable figurative illustrations that do not accurately represent truth as clearly set forth elsewhere in the Scriptures, and particularly in His own literal statements?” The answer is that He was meeting people on their own ground. Many in the audience — without the least OT Scriptural reason for doing so — had come to believe in the doctrine of a conscious state of existence between death and the resurrection (see COL 263). This erroneous belief, which does not appear in the OT, pervades post-exilic Jewish literature in general (see pp. 83-102), and like many other traditional beliefs, had become a part of Judaism by the time of Jesus (see on Mark 7:7-13). In this parable Jesus simply made use of a popular belief in order thereby to make forcibly clear an important lesson He sought to plant in the minds of His hearers. It may also be noted that in the preceding parable, that of the Dishonest Steward (Luke 16:1-12), Jesus neither commended nor approved of the dishonest steward’s course of action, although that action constitutes the main part of the story (see on v. 8).

Even the modernist International Critical Commentary comments as follows on v. 22: “The general principle is maintained that bliss and misery after death are determined by conduct previous to death; but the details of the picture are taken from Jewish beliefs as to the condition of souls in Sheol [see on Prov. 15:11], and must not be understood as confirming those beliefs.”

Sometimes attention is called to the fact that Jesus does not state that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable, at least apparently in so far as Luke’s account goes (although one ancient manuscript [D] does call it a parable), whereas, elsewhere parables are usually so labeled (Matt. 13:3, 24, 33, 44, 45, 47). But it should be pointed out that although Jesus usually introduced a parable either by stating that it was a parable or by saying that the kingdom of heaven was like a person or a thing in the specific circumstances He then proceeded to relate, He did not always do so (see Luke 15:8, 11; 16:1 for examples). The same is true of various OT parables such as those of Judges 9:8-15 and 2 Kings 14:9, yet no one professes to believe that because these parables are not clearly labeled as such they are to be taken literally. The fallacy of such an argument is rendered obvious by a mere reading of the few references cited.

In this “rich man” Jesus undoubtedly intended the Pharisees to see themselves, and in the unhappy experience of the “rich man” to picture their own hapless fate (see on v. 14). Compare this “rich man” with the one of the preceding parable (v. 1). The translation of the Gr. plousios, “rich,” by the Latin dives in the Vulgate, has given rise to the popular tradition that the man’s name was Dives. A variety of names appear in various other versions, probably as a result of the feeling that if the poor man of the parable was named, the rich man should be also.

Purple. Gr. porphura, “a purple fabric,” or “a garment made from purple cloth”; here it probably refers to the costly outer garment, the “cloak,” or “mantle” (Gr. himatiorr, see on Matt. 5:40), dyed a royal purple color. Purple was the color of royal dignity.

Originally, porphura referred to a species of shellfish common in the Mediterranean, the murex, from which a purple dye was extracted. Then the term, or its equivalent, came to be applied to cloth so dyed or a garment made from that cloth (see Mark 15:17, 20; Acts 16:14; Rev. 17:4; etc.). This dye came in three shades, which might be described as purple, crimson, and blue.

Fine linen. Gr. bussos, “flax,” or “linen,” the cloth made from it; here it probably refers to the under garment, the “coat,” or “tunic” (Gr. chiton, see on Matt. 5:40), made of Egyptian flax. At first bussos referred to the flax itself, and then came to be applied to linen cloth made from the flax. As “purple” was the color of royal dignity, so “fine linen” was the fabric of luxury (see Rev. 18:12; 19:8, 14).